I was the last speaker in a long chain of presenters. I was tired (just before me was a presentation that I expected to relate to excellently, yet instead my brain was completely unable to process any information).
Hence, despite limited time and a hard time-frame (I was the last speaker) – I chose to prompt the attendees to start with a short movement exercise. They were invited to open their window, and maybe shake their limbs for a moment. “Only 20 minutes to go, we can do this!”. One participant even did a small yoga exercise on screen, which impressed me deeply. Their comfort and enjoyment of acknowledging their body was what I had anticipated my audience would be comfortable with. For this reason my prompt was to “open their windows” which entails a movement aspect that, I assumed, everybody would be comfortable with. My presentation was an abbreviated version of the OB1 class. My slides were ready, and I used a brief video-game extract to introduce the key idea “object oriented ontologies” to my colleagues. The video was subtitled (as are all my class videos) and it was a nice opener (I was told later). All slides followed UAL guidelines and my colleagues complemented me on these. (Quote: The slides could not be faulted.) I included a preamble which I called “housekeeping”. Housekeeping here refers to good practices of being a “considered host” when giving a class. It is my responsibility that my students (or “guests”) feel safe and comfortable when they are in my class. I want to insure safe and honest learning environments. I declared that I will (on slide 19) make mention of a nuclear bomb and that I invite everybody who (quote) “currently hasn’t got the emotional space, or doesn’t want to make emotional space for this topic, ……
they are invited to turn their camera off, leave the room and have a coffee or tea instead.
I will still be here in 20 minutes once my presentation is over, and I want them to make their own informed decision if they consent to engage with my presentation”. My slides were shared via link in chat and I offered to be approachable by anyone, should they be so inclined to want to take this conversation further.
—- MOVE: Open windows. Acknowledging our body. Overall I found this peer review and observation extremely useful, and much more engaging, interesting than the lectures in the sessions before. Unlike the lectures, which were modulated not at the right tone for me, the observation and active listening and critiquing were occasionally very challenging. There were certainly aspects that I didn’t like in some of the presentations, and some practices that I follow which were not executed by my colleagues around me. This sparked me to engage into a fairly nuanced process of active reflection. On one hand I try to appreciate another teacher’s work on its own merits (i.e. trying to minimize my own biases and preconceptions) –
Are you familiar with the work by Erin Manning? It changed me, it changed my practice and it continues to change my life. I want to begin with a quote from her paper:
In “Body/Power” Foucault writes: “One needs to study what kind of body the current society needs.” While the university is certainly not the only site of power/knowledge, I turn to the university for this account of “what kind of body the current society needs” because it is a site of contestation where the exception often reigns in the name of alternative pedagogies and practices, a site where many of us, myself included, imagine other ways of working and sometimes are even able to activate them. I turn to the university because there is a troubling asymmetry at the heart of teaching and learning practices, on the one hand creating a path for new ways of thinking and making while on the other imposing forms of knowledge that do violence to the bodies they purport to address. I turn to the university because there is of necessity a discontinuity between the individual and collective practices of experimentation it houses and the neoliberalism that undergirds it. I turn to the university because it has been a site of resistance and a site where new orientations toward study have been born: black studies, queer socialities, postcolonialism, disability studies. And I turn to the university because most days I am not at all certain that the site for these explorations and activations of power/knowledge is actually capable of the kind of complex work necessary for the decolonization of knowledge, at least not as long as the centrality of the (white) (neurotypical) human as purveyor and guarantor of experience reigns supreme.
Manning, E., 2018. Me lo dijo un pajarito: Neurodiversity, black life, and the University as we know it. Social Text, 36(3), pp.1-24.
Erin Mannings work takes place of the intersection of STS, pedagogy and intersectionality and mad studies. Despite not being a scholar “on the digital” Manning is a scholar of knowledge, knowledge-power and “the body”. Respecting embodiment and the learner’s body and the teacher’s body in encounters-of-learning and learning-encounters, is a key issue I feel strongly about.
In this sense I recently watched an interesting and challenging video on the topic of “modal learning and learning styles” i.e. the common belief that some of us are visual learners, auditive learners, kinetic learners or … etc. There seems to be little empirical evidence of these modes of learnign are more than pedagogical myths.
Further research though (and this finally leads me to this topic of embodyiment and experiential learning) indicates that “great teachers” are facilitating multimodal learning in their sessions that activate multisensory and synchronised messages across a number of media. They show, they tell, they facilitate exeriences and make use of intellectual and emotional modes of knowledge-mobilisiation.
Below I will unpack the quote by Manning, which I posted above.
In “Body/Power” Foucault writes: “One needs to study what kind of body the current society needs.”
Bodies know stuff and bodies are at the centre of creation, externalisation and reception of knowledge. Yet, in the context of designing and thinking about pedagogies, the visceral material body, of either – the student/learner and the teacher – remain overlooked; remain taken for granted. Remain mute and are docided into overhearing.
While the university is certainly not the only site of power/knowledge, I turn to the university for this account of “what kind of body the current society needs” because it is a site of contestation where the exception often reigns in the name of alternative pedagogies and practices, a site where many of us, myself included, imagine other ways of working and sometimes are even able to activate them.
What does it say about our society then, and us and The University if this site at the forefront of knowledge is consistently failing the students, its teachers and the learning. Knowing about knowing is the matter of STS; hence I think that these discissions of knowledge-power are fundamentally at the heart and part-and-parcel of STSing.
Dissecting and retelling the story of the academy through the lens of the body; of subaltern bodies and bodies subaltern … leads us inevitable to instances of friciton and subjugation of knowledges.
Bodies not only “know”; “following the body leads to new knowing”.
And some bodies know more about fricitons than others.
That’s sad; that’s a fact; that’s a state that we should not accept; tolerate or leave unchallenged.
I turn to the university because there is a troubling asymmetry at the heart of teaching and learning practices, on the one hand creating a path for new ways of thinking and making while on the other imposing forms of knowledge that do violence to the bodies they purport to address.
Amen.
I turn to the university because there is of necessity a discontinuity between the individual and collective practices of experimentation it houses and the neoliberalism that undergirds it.
The increasing neoliberalisation of the academy is a catalyst of these undesirable new tendancies; but it is also a distraction from any realistic goals we can seek to achieve as a university, as an institute, as individual lecturers on a specific course.
Yes, fine, let’s take down capitalism- but until capitalism has ended; let’s improve the conditions of teaching and learning hilst our colleagues vanquish Mark Zuckerberg, Empire and borders.
I turn to the university because it has been a site of resistance and a site where new orientations toward study have been born: black studies, queer socialities, postcolonialism, disability studies.
If my legacy is the catalisation of more of those conditions of transformation, I am happy. It is what I am trying to achieve in my UALONLINE project; it is what I am pusuing by studing and teaching critical theory.
Criticality in this sense is not about critique it is about care, critical care. Intensive care. The kind of care that prevents death and preserves life. Critical thinking at the inception of technology saves lives. Not metaphorically; but literatlly.
And I turn to the university because most days I am not at all certain that the site for these explorations and activations of power/knowledge is actually capable of the kind of complex work necessary for the decolonization of knowledge, at least not as long as the centrality of the (white) (neurotypical) human as purveyor and guarantor of experience reigns supreme.
I close this blog post with a page from my own doctoral work.
Time: 14oo-17oo. The first hour is lecturing; then 1 hour group work, then student presentations.
Given that I have not received explicit consent for the students to be observed, please only review the section of the lecture that features me lecturing. The student’s microphone is turned off in the recording, but you can hear my response to the student prompts.
Observee: M J Hunter Brueggemann Observer: Kirsty Nevett
Observee to complete the following in brief and discuss with observer prior to session:
Context statement:
I have picked this session for observation post-hoc having held the class.
I am usually very happy and invigorated after teaching; yet this class exhausted me for several reasons. As this is potentially one of my weakest performances of the year, I think using this as a learning opportunity would be strategic.
What wasn’t ideal:
I was physically very exhausted because my secondary job, which is finishing and the admin there is tricky to navigate. I am overdue with marking these student essays (from my secondary job); whilst lacking any input on what the feedback and marking criteria mean. (Not UAL).
I also only had 28 hours notice of having to hold this lecture; so the slides are much worse than I would like them to be.
Furthermore, the students didn’t have enough time to do the class readings or the homework because there was not enough notice. I usually rely on these readings to have a conversation and enable them to do their group work.
The students have no prior education/training in philosophy, so I am relying heavily on the readings as basis for a meaningful engagement with the topics of the lecture.
I also didn’t upload the slides before the class, which I usually do (48 hour notice for accessibility + language considerations), which frustrated me, as this is something I am committed to actively improve on.
Having said all that; I am also aware that I have really high standards for my own lecture, and I think that – to the students – this lecture seems to have gone really well. In fact, I had 3 tutorials that week in which the students gave me really high praise which was lovely. (“I love the themes you teach”, “I could listen to you all day”, “I would love to listen to you talk all day”. I think I am really good at hiding how I feel internally whilst in lecturer/presenter mode. (One of the things stand-up comedy teaches you immediately!)
I am interested in your feedback on this session for the above reasons:
I usually am very satisfied with my lectures; I would like to hear from you about this one because it went comparatively poorly.
To address some of the weaknesses, after the lecture I revised the slides and made them much more accessible. (I told the students this in class that I would do this and circulated the new link.) The original slides from the lecture wouldn’t be useful for the students in the long run; so I uploaded a revised version which will be more meaningful to them in the long run. I hope that these new slides are more useful to them in a few weeks (and could probably be re-used next year). Revised Slides: https://artslondon-my.sharepoint.com/:p:/g/personal/h_brueggemann_arts_ac_uk/EXRmkOgJjjNJtvBpezED5yEBXsPy3Nf0jt4D2SUp2r5I3g?e=cEVoRq
Overall: I think there is a lot you can articulate re: constructive feedback on my lecture.
My line manager is particularly keen for me to develop the following skills:
a) slide accessibility
b) developing my ability to teach online.
As you will probably see, my lecturing style is quite interactive and intended to put the students into a particular emotional place of “inquisitive empathy”.
I want the students to associate critical theory with a feeling of interest and confidence. I am aware that this is not a philosophy degree, and I can’t teach them philosophy at any meaningful level; but what I CAN do, is give them the courage and confidence to engage with primary philosophical literature on their own – whenever they need it; be this during their studies at UAL or once they graduate.
HOWEVER: I am concerned that this approach and my skill-set are maybe not as effective when teaching through zoom/teams etc. Some pointers how to transfer my skills into the digital medium would be extremely helpful.
*** *** *** *** ***
Why have you chosen this session for observation?
See above.
What is the context of this session within the curriculum?
This session is dedicated to equipping the students with the tools to critically think about objects in new ways; grounded in the literature of the new material turn.
How long have you been working with this group and in what capacity?
Since they began their MSc degrees. This is a double-term unit.
Intended or expected learning outcomes for this session:
See slides.
Anticipated outputs from the session (anything students will make/do):
Write an object-oriented inquiry. See slides
Any potential difficulties or areas of concern:
See above.
How will students be informed of the observation:
See above.
What you would particularly like feedback on:
See above. (Accessibility and inclusion, particularly for non-native English speakers or non-Western students, or ISA students)
How will feedback be exchanged?
However is most convenient for you.
As my line manager is keen to track my developments in this area, maybe let me know if you consent to share your feedback with her. Alternatively, I may ask you for a summary of your observation at a later stage for my probation review, provided this request is appropriate and you are willing to do this for me, (no pressure!). We can discuss this at a later stage and see what is comfortable for you.
Rachel’s response: Usually, the OB1 form is completed in advance of a session (not essential though), rather than post-hoc. What is interesting here is the level of in-depth reflection on the session to be observed and already delivered. I look forward to hearing your further responses on the OB2 form once the observations from Kirsty and I are completed.
Also, you have consent from me if you want to share the OB2 form with your line manager. What might be best is to share your overall workflow portfolio with your manager once completed as it will give much more holistic insight into your learning experiences from the unit. Just an idea.
Egh. I found many aspects about this unit and the experience of it very frustrating.
Rachel made a comment on that “there is never a good time for a PGCert”. I can believe that. And given the amount of hours I have spent on this course; I think it would have been more fruitful and impactful on my practice to produce a self-directed study or produce an original publishable research paper in this context.
I am very patient with my students, but as a student I am very task oriented and respond well to clear and unambiguous instructions. I prefer tasks to be explicitly oriented and conducive to a specific goal. I find that these conditions are not well-met in the context of this unit.
As a learner, I am not the most patient person. In the context of this unit, I was preoccupied with some research deadlines of my own, the teaching, career related issues, personal/private things…, and right here in the moment… this does not seem to be worth my time.
I don’t mean that Rachel or Sergio are doing a bad job- no; I don’t think that the materials covered are not important. That is firmly not what I am trying to express.
Instead these are the points of frustration that I experience as part of this course:
I was/am very unclear about the minimum outputs for this class. I don’t like the ambiguity of styles, and I find the moodle space very messy and difficult to navigate.
The term of “blog posts” is very ambiguously defined, (no word count, no style guide, no examples) – yet there is a firm boundary of 8 posts which is non-negotiable. How does this make sense? Why is 8 the be and ends all of the submission; but these 8 posts are so openly defined. I find this inconsistent; and it makes me unsure about the minimal requirement that I need to fulfill for this class.
Workflow and WordPress are not really userfriendly. I am not using this platform very much, but I know how to use it; yet my colleagues are finding this platform very difficult to navigate. What does this platform offer over other ones? How is this qualitatively advantageous over a forum or a shared dropbox PDF or even a TEAMS group? Being restrained to use this platform seems like an unnecessary energy drain.
I am aware of a wide range of backgrounds in my class. I am strong on the research aspects and I published in the area, yet I feel really out of my comfort zone in this module; which leads me to be really insecure about my place in the course.
I found the sessions with Sergio too slow for my own comfort. When I am attending the sessions I find myself often distracted by other stuff that pops up. I found it preferable to watching the recordings and fast forward to the sections that are too slow for current level of tenseness. However, given that the recordings are not labelled in a meaningful way, navigating them (and keeping the overview) was difficult. I probably skipped some sessions by accident. It was not clear to me which sessions were repetitive of other sessions and which ones were new content. 🙁
Due to health constraints and some poor planning on my part and short-term changes in my availability I have severely struggled to make it to the in-person teaching in time.
The session where I traveled to London and booked a hotel to attend the class ended up being cancelled and replaced by an online session. This was an unfortunate accident, but it did upset me in the moment quite a bit that I spent the money on a train from Manchester and booked a hotel which was moot in the end. I received the information about the cancelled session 5 minutes too late and the investment has already taken place.
I would prefer to produce a research paper for this course instead of the scattered and kaleidoscopic array of tasks associated with this unit. I think such an essay/statement would be more useful for a SFHEA or research publication in the area of pedagogical best practice.
I found the calendar hard to keep track of. Yes, the information was clearly laid-out in the Moodle space, but I had to create manual entries in my own diary. This seems like an unnecessary time-dump as UAL possesses the tech to make these entries automatic.
I don’ think BBcollab is a good teaching space; MS Teams is better equipped and more reliable IMHO. Teams could also be a substitute for Workflow or the blog. That way a single-medium approach could streamline the study experience.
Edit: It is now time for submission and my Workflow Space is fully uncooperative. This is making me even more frustrated with the submission format. I would MUCH rather submit a single, well structured, indexed PDF with all content. Oh well. At least I got a blog entry out of this….
I want my course to be a provocation. If everybody is fully comfortable with my outputs, I don’t think I did my job right.
Today I want to talk about my UAL online job where I am CL for the new “Introducing Creativity” course by CCI. The objective of this course is to push the boundary of pedagogical practice, institutional tolerance and the medium of online FE/HE. I wanna blow up some minds.
The work is profoundly informed by my PhD work. My doctoral work is very abstract in many ways, and very esoteric. Yet, I also believe that it is incredibly rigorous and consistent in its inner logic.
Nonetheless, not very useful or applicable as such.
Where my work starts do develop its true strength is “in dialogue with context”.
Once I become exposed to a “real world problem” a strong theoretical grounding and ethical sense of guidance through feminist theory; the needs of remediation become evident and clear.
In other words: learning to see the implicit causes of injustice inevitably puts forward the needs to change the circumstances that have lead to these injustices.
In my UAL ONLINE course for example I want to give the students the ability to grade their own work.
After all, only students themselves are the single authority able to judge if they learned in a truly transformative fashion.
This is me experimenting with academia and pushing the boundary of what is wanted and possible…. (whilst nobody is looking, hihihi).
Why are we now discussing research within our own institution? Have I missed something? I am genuinely confused where is this coming from.
Am I supposed to do a research study on UAL? On my colleagues? I am lacking context.
I found the reading a bit difficult and too long, and I was very unclear what I was supposed to get from the text. … Great start. :S Fine.
“Researching my own institution. “
I am an ethnographer, I got this one in the bag? I feel I should.
In fact, I am coming to the conclusion that a thorough ethnographic and anthropological practice is an extremely transferrable skillset that heavily informs my stance in social settings and thus is very transferrable into a valid pedagogy which I am beginning to articulate here, and for my (S)FHEA.
I will focus on 2 aspects for how an ethnographic training can be a fruitful base for a pedagogical practice. I will discuss practical considerations (facilitation, in-situ reflection, people-management) and theoretical ones (institutional critique and meta-critiques and meta-reflexive practices whist in-action).
ONE Good ethnography requires good quality data.
Helen Newing trained me. (Thats a humble-brag. She is a bit like the Anna Wintour of Conservation Biology.)
After 10 weeks of social-science methods for conservation she ended the class with one final comment. The most important factor to getting good quality data from your informants is …
“the quality of the food.”
Once can only use advance coding methodologies and statistical inference and theme-mapping etc, when the interview quality is great. All this analytical training is – in a very explicit way and manner – contingent on… the happiness and satisfaction of the informants… in a way on the quality of the food you are serving.
Yes; – the bodies and comfort of your informants matters. Their wellbeing and the outcome of the research are fundamentally interconnected.
Put in this way this obviously makes sense; but considering the physical and emotional wellbeing of informants
When reflecting back on Duna’s work I dug out Helen Newing’s methods book. An outstanding publication which – to this day – is a core staple in my academic and teaching practice.
Adding this volute to the UAL catalogue was one of the first things I did when I started at UAL.
Despite being a book for “conservation biology” its clarity, brevity and thoroughness render it still an excellent introduction – even when teaching “creative computing” and philosophy.
Newing, H., 2010. Conducting Research in Conservation. Routledge.
This book, together with the sensitivities and methods of Biomythography (such as Audre Lorde’s Zami) – are now steering my practice. They are both legs I stand on; one being a thorough grounding in empiricism (unbothered by the qualitative-quantitative gap) and the other leg being my artistic practice of using poetry and text as epistemological battleground for decolonial emancipation.
I have expressed in another post some of my frustrations with this unit.
The peer observation however is a stark counterpoint for me. I loved being exposed to a colleague’s work and working and found getting feedback really useful. More so, I found it very useful to be given time to actively reflect on my own teaching practice, habits, strengths and weaknesses. I got a chance to externalise explicitly many of the things that have become very second nature to me.
A very close friend of mine said something very kind when we talked about “what its like going to uni” and he talked about his most influential professor at uni where:
This professor just just walked in,
gave a thrilling lecture
and left.
Prof. Memorable has achieved transformative lecture, whilst being fully unscripted and all remaining fully natural whilst staying engaging.
We all know these professors, right? (Do we?)
Anyhow – my friend then (quite casually) said- (quote):
“you know, just like you are doing it, I’m sure “
I was positively shocked. I must say… that feels nice to hear. He never heard me give a lecture, but he knows me and I’d like to think he is right? I never saw the “dead poets society” but – if I trust what I heard about the film – I think the professor there is the type of scholar who I would like to be one day.
And whilst (for accessibility reasons and others) a purely Platonian way of teaching is probably no longer acceptable in contemporary HE, it is nice to have an abstract idea to what I am looking to work towards. To produce a best of both worlds.
Sorry for the dérivé.
I profoundly appreciate having been given time and space to reflect on my practice, and have an external feedback on it with with to engage constructively. Many thanks Rachel. This activity was probably my highlight of/for the unit.
In the future, I think I would like to focus more on this type of hands-on advice and more guidance on what makes good and poor advice. And give the observees a chance to change their style and experiment with the input from their observers.
Aside of the lessons from the observation (which I address in a different blog post) I think this was extremely valuable, and an enjoyable part of this course.
Rachel’s feedback on my teaching sparked some reflections of my own. HERE BE THESE THOUGHTS (and dragons).
Reading this was really nice. I am really happy to see so much positive feedback and equally thrilled to get some discrete pointers on things I might want to consider changing in my future practice.
The notion of inquisitive empathy refers back to some earlier research I do not recall the title off; as well as the recognition of the limitations of my teaching in the course I am working on.
The students should learn to associate intellectual-theoretical inquiry with a sentiment of confidence.
I cannot equip the students with an ability to truly master the philosophical literature that is needed for a properly thorough critical engagement with technology at an STS level (Science and Technology Studies). However, I can get the students into an emotional space where they are excited to explore these techno-critical questions slowly and draw on literatures that are meaningful to them.
The students should leave my class with the confidence to think critically for themselves; with the ability to resist the promises of large-tech suppliers, with an awareness of their own impact as technologists in the overall global patriarchal, euro-centric, colonial, exploitative system that we are finding ourselves in. Therein the students should be aware that in-action is not the sole approach to this state of wickedness, but that the feminist toolbox enables us to produce context-led solutions that are informed by rigorous ethical, theoretical and practical aspects of a solid innovation practice. This practice could be solutions-oriented or abstract and artistic. These two approaches have a lot to offer to each other.
I am incredibly glad you are pointing me towards the work of Lee C. I am familiar with Lee’s work, and Lee is aware of my creative work and has said kind things about my poetry in the past. I have indeed a small background in stand-up comedy and (more so) a background in public speaking an facilitation. I have several years of toastmaster training in leadership and communication under my belt and I am glad to hear that it seems that this shows. I am in-fact aware of this strength in my skill-box and this influences my course design and pedagogy in the sense that I am trying to play to my strengths.
I take a fair amount of pride in my public teaching skills and therefore I am keen to engage with the feedback for this session as this very much felt like a fire-baptism for me. As stated in my OB1 document: “This is pretty much as bad as it gets”. Everything in this class went sub-optimal, and it seems this still went pretty well.
One example of this class having gone sub-optimal is that I have put a lot of work into the decolonized reading list (prior to class) but then forgot to share these slides with the students. However, as this information was comprehensive and self-explanatory I am satisfied enough that I have added this to the slides. However, explicitly pointing the students to these texts would have been ideal. ***
What do you think this honesty affords with the students?
I think I am trying to keep this class a safe space. No question is forbidden whilst I am teaching; and the students can be open with me whilst in the room. (This goes in with the pedagogy of inquisitiveness that I have described above). As such I think I am creating a positive precedent by identifying weaknesses in my practice, acknowledging that I didn’t meet the needs of students with ISA (individual support arrangement plans) and how I will seek to rectify this shortcoming.
I am also hoping to manage expectation before this gets raised by the students through an official complaints pathway. I am trying to show the students that I respect their individual needs, and regret to inform my limitations in this case.
This is also addressing written agreements with the CL of the MSc degree where I am teaching on.
As I took over the class on short notice, I prioritized certain aspects of the lesson (good slides, understandable flow, correct information, relatable examples, good housekeeping) over other aspects (spelling, 48h advance, pre-recording, finalized handouts, additional readings).
In retrospect, I think I would do this again this way. The positive feedback from my reviewers makes me think that my call was correct.
However, I may ask a colleague (native speaker) to quickly proofread my slides – if this is possible for them.
As I become more experienced and aware of their workload, this may be something I could consider for the future.
Could you have warned students of light fluctuations in case of light sensitivities?
This is correct.
Could you give a short content warning prior to sharing the video in case of sound sensitivities?
This is correct.
I will need to give this some further thought. I believe to some extent that the light and sound changes I subjected the students to were within the thresholds of tolerable fluctuations; yet I agree that the lights in this theatre go from complete blackout to “well lit” in a fairly fast fashion.
The light switches are not on-off however, but do include a few second delay/dim function.
My hesitations stem from a certain degree of uncertainty regarding the use of excessive “handholding” at the detriment of essential H/S and inclusion advice.
I dont want to be the lecturer who cried “wolf”.
Signposting accessibility issues is important; – and I don’t want to dilute the importantce of these signposts by using them unecessarily. Where is the boundary between ecxessive handholding and paternalistic decisionmaking over their heads?
Which warnings are needed, are excessive, are superflous and when? And who gets to make these calls?
I think an actionable point resulting from this issue you raised is to schedule a conversation with our very kind CCI disability and accessibility advisor.
Whilst this light-switch issue itself is maybe not the be-all-and-ends-all of the world, it may be great to use this as a discussion point on how to develop a clear and defensible position in my attitude and practice concerning inclusive practices in the classroom. I am looking forward to discuss this and seek out what the CCI recommended standards are, and how they align with my feminist teaching practice.
Mic issues?
Noted.
This shifts agency to students in the teaching and learning space to inform the context of the session, and encourage peers to engage with the podcasts, and think about their own work.
Its what I like most about teaching. I mimic and echo some of the practices from standard philosophical/sociological seminar teaching. My facilitation training enables me to transform my lectures into seminars as much as I can. Whilst I would prefer small seminars, this hybrid model (between lecture and seminar) is an acceptable middle ground.
What role does humour play in teaching and learning?
I try to make the students laugh at least once per class. That is an explicit aim of mine when designing the lecture. I think it is a good way to communicate approachability as well as keep them engaged. Whilst most students like my classes, I think a minority of them may find them too abstract/dry. The humor hopefully helps to keep then engaged as much as possible.
“they cite each other, they support each other, they’re besties, they have enormous influence on philosophy as its written, whilst ignoring those putting forward valid challenges…It’s a circus, they don’t need to care what others think.” A poignant moment of social, moral and ethical consideration.
I think this is a valid criticism of much/most of the contemporary theoretical and overall academic literature. This criticism (if taken on board by the students) is a valid way to position their own voice against major-league scholars even in their mini-blogs or final year essay (2500 words). This comment was supposed to empower the students to be explicit and “disrespectful” with their readings.
Challenging authors is an explicit way to show “criticality” which will be rewarded with a very high mark in the course. Particularly for non-western students this may be important to hear every single week. I will start marking their work and reflect on this and scope if there are cultural issues between western and non-western educated students and their relation to authorial authority. Marking their work last year, it seemed a bit like this was the case.
Could you fold in a feedback/evaluation exercise or activity into the session to help mediate your own self-doubt and also provide tangible areas for improvement. This could be done via Mentimeter/Textwall, quiz/poll.
This is an excellent solution I have not yet considered. I may be wary of adding distractions to the class (which could be mainly distracting myself), but this sounds like a great suggestion.
